For all of 2011, USPA received only 28 reports of non-fatal accidents and incidents (let’s label them all “incidents”). That’s right: Out of some 33,000 skydivers making 3 million jumps in the U.S., USPA received only 28 reports of problems. There were no reports about incidents or injuries from the half million tandem jumps last year. And only three reports were submitted from among 60,000 student jumps last year despite AAD activations, equipment problems, blown exits, two canopies out, off-field landings and a range of injuries. That’s a lot of lessons and experiences withheld from instructors and skydivers alike.

That is in stark contrast to the Australian Parachute Federation, whose membership and annual jump numbers are less than one-tenth of USPA’s, and yet APF received 651 incident reports last year. Take a look at the excerpt from the bimonthly APF News-Sheet (available at uspa.org or by scanning the QR code to the right) that provides details of 64 incidents. In this selection of incident reports, the publication details 34 tandem incidents, 14 student incidents, five incidents involving licensed skydivers and 11 rigging reports. I guarantee you will learn something.

Frankly I think it is a a disgrace US DZ's are allowed to NOT report actual incidents which involve injury.

Are S&TA's not meeting their responsibility to submit reports or should they resign their USPA appointments as S&TA's as the Executive Director of USPA suggests?

Quote:

Can any skydiver argue with the premise that incident reports help improve safety or that more reports would make safer skydivers of us all? Unfiled reports only ensure that no one has the opportunity to learn from the experience or misfortune of others. USPA Coaches, Instructors and Examiners especially know the value of lifelong learning in our unforgiving sport, and yet we are all failing to provide one of the best sources of skydiving education.

>Frankly I think it is a a disgrace US DZ's are allowed to NOT report actual incidents >which involve injury.

How would you enforce that?

It's not my job to enforce anything hence my post requesting additional information regarding an important subject which deals with Safety & Training which was published this month in Parachutist by the Executive Director of USPA.

Are incident reports and accident reports not required whatsoever and are you pointing out that USPA has no capacity to enforce anything even if they act as a so-called governing body. Certainly I do not have the ability to enforce anything.

My 2¢ is only a forum post on DZ.com

Perhaps the widespread national failure within the United States to report "Incidents" of any kind involves reasons I simply can't fathom or address in an informed capacity. I do agree that a downward trend has developed in this area and to me is a cause for concern.

They do not. The only people required are the S&TAs. My apologies for implying that they were. I was merely pointing out that USPA could enforce or amend its regulations to require reporting and could take action against those who will not do so. As it is USPA, as far as I can tell, lacks the will to enforce any regulations. Violations are abundant, both in the GMs not upholding their pledge (separate swoop area, anyone?) and by individual skydivers (cloud clearance requirements, among others).

OK. So what level of incident would you report? Sprained ankles? Anything that requires a trip to the hospital? EMS response? Life flight?

Here even an off-landing requires an incident report. Any medical assistance requires a incident report.

There is value in increased incident reporting. The questions are just how, when, what. This is one of those rare situations when regulation is probably the best way forward (as per Australia, New Zealand etc.)

Here even an off-landing requires an incident report. Any medical assistance requires a incident report.

There is value in increased incident reporting. The questions are just how, when, what. This is one of those rare situations when regulation is probably the best way forward (as per Australia, New Zealand etc.)

Who's requiring the report in NZ? The skydiving association? Or the civil aviation authority?

I imagine if the FAA required reporting from dropzones, it'd be a lot easier to get compliance (force of law and all that) than if the USPA required it (what with their complete lack of effective enforcement mechanisms).

Wow.... I can't imagine what the reports would have looked like at the 2009 USPA Nationals in Rosharon, TX. There were many days when folks landed out on nearly every load. The clouds were dense and jumpers would accept any safe hole in the clouds, even if it did not allow flight back to the DZ. Pretty much any spot that didn't put us in the swamp was OK. The DZ had trucks running to pick up jumpers almost all the time. I would estimate that there were at least 100-200 individual "out" landings. (I know my 4-way FS team landed out at least twice... which is 10 individual landings.)

I am not sure what the benefit of reporting every "out" landing would be. Does your governing organization find REAL value in reports of NON-injury "out" landings?

An "Accident, Incident, or Malfunction" report is to be submitted, which can be done by anyone involved (the jumper, an instructor, the DZO, or other qualified personnel) The DZ is to be informed or a copy given to them. Many DZ's probably don't bother much unless it involves a student -- because the school insurance won't apply unless the incident is reported. But I have been at a couple DZ's where the practice is to hand one of the AIM forms to anyone who had a mal etc. -- whether the reports get passed on or are used internally, that's another matter. At one DZ, we use the reports for a review at the next year's spring safety & instructor meetings.

The CSPA Technical committee does look at reports and summarizes interesting trends or examples in its annual report, but the report is very short, and most jumpers don't see it, so we don't actually get a lot out of the whole system.

If the issue for USPA members' trust is that the law may get hold of "confidential" reports, then the USPA might need to improve the way it de-personalizes reports, doing so soon after reports come in. (I don't know how it actually does things.) But while that is relatively easy for one-off incidents, it would be hard to do in the case of a serious accident where diffferent info may be collected over time. As for other confidential reporting systems, I don't know what protections NASA ASRS have, for example.

I'm willing to bet there are alot less bored lawyers with nothing to do in NZ than there are in the US.

Not sure what you are trying to say? There are alot less lawyers (per capita) here. We don't have anything close to the level of ligitation that you have in the USA. Here you have to pay for legal advice and you generally can't sue for personal injury.

And yes, to all those who think filling in an incident report for an off-landing is a waste of time and probably of little real value to anyone, I agree. I'm not sure precisely where the requirement comes from, however the form is sent to the CAA.

I'm willing to bet there are alot less bored lawyers with nothing to do in NZ than there are in the US.

Not sure what you are trying to say? There are alot less lawyers (per capita) here. We don't have anything close to the level of ligitation that you have in the USA. Here you have to pay for legal advice and you generally can't sue for personal injury.

And yes, to all those who think filling in an incident report for an off-landing is a waste of time and probably of little real value to anyone, I agree. I'm not sure precisely where the requirement comes from, however the form is sent to the CAA.

blue ones.

I'm saying one possible reason no one wants to document incidents that are non-fatal is fear of a lawsuit.

> I can't imagine what the reports would have looked like at the 2009 USPA Nationals in Rosharon, TX.

That may be part of the point of the reporting requirements in other organizations. Is the DZO really going to be OK with people landing off if it means hours of paperwork for him?

Having gathered information from this thread and the other ones relating to this issue I better understand that with the "Description of Incident" field it opens a cans of worms.

I wouldn't report possible second-hand information as if I am the Investigator nor do I think S&TA's are appointed as forensic investigators of major and/or minor incidents. Then affirm possibly unreliable information with my licensing information and signature.

The form in and of itself creates undue legal exposure and liability. Often it is not clear what and why an Incident happened and opens the door to speculation which could have adverse legal effects on the person/and or DZ providing a written statement.

Short version...... The USPA has given incident reports that were given to them in confidence and handed them over to people suing the DZ.

So, why in the hell would you give a report to the USPA to just have them give it to someone who is suing you?

Also, the USPA has pretty much done nothing with the information they have.

So, you could give them information and they will do nothing with it except maybe give it to someone who is suing you.

Hell, I would not give them any information either.

Yep. Also recall that information given to the FAA, NTSB or the NASA reporting system is privileged and cannot be used in court. The same is not true of information given to the USPA, which can be subpoenaed by a plaintiff's attorney